Thats a fact that mr. bunnies, I'm certain, would gladly confirm.

to create more spaces for consensus building talking circles. I have some experience from both best known varieties, talking circles with talking stick and those with facilitators and hand signs, and from that experience compering those methods, talking stick is the one which gives more room for women's voices - and to shy people who don't actively seek turn to speak.

that I've experienced in the past and will probably happen again (though perhaps not to the same degree.) If I even speak proportionally, I'll be treated as a controlling bitch, or weird, or something. So is that my believing my opinion is inferior or a result of an action by men?

Also, when I was younger and sometimes today, I withhold opinions because it just gives men another avenue through which to hit on me. Like, they think I'm interested in them or something, or they do a teasing thing, or they use it as a reason to e-mail me about the point later. We have to police our words lest they in any way invite unwanted attention, even though it's not our fault. I'm the one who will have to deal with the consequences--no one else.

I guess my choice in the matter is that I don't like interrupting and bloviating, and if I have to do that to talk then I feel like I'm violating my own standards.

Finally, I do think women "control" conversations a lot more than people realize, although it tends to be in a way in which we end up not getting credit. In other words, we make connections between people and topics, suggest new topics, etc. Most of my professional career has involved suggesting things that other people run with, for which they later take full credit. I have the satisfaction of knowing I got my opinion in there to shape things, but then I'm invisible, which today seriously pisses me off and I refuse to do. But I think this has been the pattern of most women throughout history.

Maybe they should also ask who starts topics, not how much airtime is used, because I think that'd show something different.

"Finally, I do think women "control" conversations a lot more than people realize, although it tends to be in a way in which we end up not getting credit. In other words, we make connections between people and topics, suggest new topics, etc. Most of my professional career has involved suggesting things that other people run with, for which they later take full credit. I have the satisfaction of knowing I got my opinion in there to shape things, but then I'm invisible, which today seriously pisses me off and I refuse to do. But I think this has been the pattern of most women throughout history."

I have to stop myself from being the "good little helper" too. If this were an equitable society, this would be natural to do--it just makes sense to help where you see something could happen and you have a solution. But if you aren't a little protective of your ideas, then people do just take credit and make you disappear from the process.

Or women, or whomever?

Instead of disallowing that poster, why did you not engage her (or him?) with more dialogue on exactly what s/he meant by that statement?

As a woman, I see myself as a humanist (although I also believe in Divinity). I don't advocate for women over men.

in dialogue and debate. There are other websites for that. DU is about promoting and discussing the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive viewpoint.

Not all Dems and progressives fall in lockstep. And yes, some of them even are pro-life. Chew on that one, Zipster...

I want to know why you do what you do here.

Likely. I think it becomes more pronounced when you add in ethnic origin. I work on a number of large enterprise level contracts where a significant portion of the workforce is not white-anglo, and is perhaps 70/30 men to women ratio. White women are perhaps the most demonstrative, followed by native-born black women, in these settings, but even there it is rare that they initiate discussion and they end up participating in the conversation less than the number of women would predict.

You get outside of those two primary groups, and the participation rate drops off even faster - the project we have is done by an Indian owned company, so a significantly higher proportion of the workforce there is Indian than is usual for most US companies. In this setting Indian women are very much marginalized, tend to be highly deferential to their male colleagues, and very seldom attempt to steer the conversation.

Societal male to female ratios may affect that as well. With a different project with a large number of senior Vietnamese participants of both genders, Vietnamese women tended to be far more assertive than was typical, albeit still differential. Given that the female to male ratio in Vietnam was skewed heavily towards women after the wars in the 60s and 70s took out a significant percentage of Vietnamese men (and given that most of the participants in these organizations came to the US after the fall of Saigan) the unusual assertiveness is likely an artifact of that high ratio. The very subtle shift towards about a 1.5% advantage for women vs. men in the US may also be instrumental in decreasing the assertiveness of American women, especially as this is abetted by a higher percentage of women than men in college, which tends to promote assertiveness and the challenging of authority figures.

First let me say, I am a man.
My conscious was raised when I attended a lecture with Q&A by a noted Jungian psychiatrist. The audience of 50+ was about 65% women. When the Q&A began the women were lively asking interesting and intelligent questions. It all came to an end when one man spoke contrary to the last woman's remarks. His view and words were not ugly, but he spoke in a forceful manner. That ended any participation by the woman.

I am thankful to that man because in observing what happened I grew in my understanding of women.

It's frustrating. I like the suggestions about how to combat this in the article and in the comments there, but it's hard to overcome the "freeze up". I doubt most men talking like the man in your example have the intention of silencing the women's participation--do you think they wonder why it got quiet afterward though?

I think we men are prone to speaking forcibly to make a point- we do it with each other and don't think anything of it. But is has the effect of shutting down the conversation in mixed company. Some of us are getting it.

Do you want to be treated the same as men or not? On the one hand you're telling me that feminists are strong, confident and independent, and don't need a man to take care of them. The next minute, you're telling me that women are delicate little flowers who need special consideration because they feel so intimidated by the mere presence of men. So which is it?

I could treat you exactly the same as I'd treat a man if you really wanted, but believe me you wouldn't like it. If I ever heard a man talking the way you do, I'd laugh at him and tell him to stop his pathetic snivelling and deal with it.

I wait my opportunity to grab the floor and say, "I have a number of things that I really want to bring up, but I want to hear what Sally has to say, the ideas she expresses to me on this are usually pretty good..."

Another thing that happens a lot is that when we do speak up, we're ignored. Then, minutes later, a man will make the exact same suggestion and everybody around the table will say it's a great idea. Both women and men join in this silencing of other women.

When I was younger I found it hard to believe that these kinds of things actually happened, but over the decades I have seen it happen again and again. Those of us women who speak up anyway get reputations for being "feisty" and other less-flattering sobriquets.

but that's mainly because I feel outnumbered. Most of the time in my job, you end up with 50-50 men/women and the women definitely talk more.

I remember one situation where I was the only woman in the room. There were 6 men and me. One of the men was a complete asshole anyway, and known for saying stupid, offensive things. At one point, we were discussing whether to put something into the product and this asshole told me "If you put that in your specs, I'll bitchslap you". I immediately reacted with "Excuse me?". He was laughing hysterically at "the look on my face". I told him that it's not even close to funny and if he didn't stop laughing I would report him to HR. He stopped laughing, but I felt VERY alone. All of the other 5 men looked uncomfortable, like they wished they could find a hold to crawl into, but only one of them (the new guy) came to my defense and all he said was "Dude, that's not cool to talk to her like that".

I decided at that point that we all needed to take a break and went to tell my boss. This guy did get fired a year later, but I doubt it was because of me.

When I'm in a large group of men like that now, I don't really feel threatened, but I do feel like they think I'm kind of "pushy" because I refuse to not speak. But less than 75% of how much I talk in a mixed group is probably about right.

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Consensus-building was the default mode. The company had a relatively flat hierarchy, with teams of the most junior to the most senior staff working together to reach goals. It was also an environment where the majority of the management rose from the ranks. That last trait was a bit problematic because at times it discouraged innovative approaches but in many ways it was the best corporation that I've ever experienced.

Most of people were fine with that approach, men and women both. Working in teams meant we shared the risk and rewards and all had a stake in the product.

After that place I felt free to speak up in male-dominated group settings and I've seen the look of shock on others' faces when I did so. I known that I've lost work because of it. Sometimes I've tried to keep my mouth shut but I'm just not wired that way.

Some of us men aren't very assertive when surrounded by loud assholes, either. And those of us of any gender who are shy, introverted, or otherwise "quiet" or "socially awkward", can attest to the experience of being mocked, taunted, and bullied by more socially dominant/aggressive types (and most of these are men, but certainly not all....)

I spoke up all the time... often for male members who were too nervous to speak out

But I was called a "Bitch" behind my back and one of my middle management informants told me point blank that the management referred to me as "the wicked witch of the west." Some even hummed her them song when they saw me coming. It really bothered me at the time but I went along with it. Once I stuck my head in the General Manager's office and said in my most evil voice... "I'll get you my pretty... and your little dog too." Contract talks were coming up so I thought that was a pretty funny threat. But now... looking back on it, it really bothered me to be thought of this way.

There seems to be no "right" way for a woman to speak up without getting major punishment.

"There seems to be no "right" way for a woman to speak up without getting major punishment."

I can relate to this today, especially. I'm in the process of writing an article for my union's newsletter, and I'm already anticipating the blowback I'm going to get for telling what I have to say. There is that tiny part of me that wishes I'd kept silent and waited for a guy to finally have a beef with what is going on, just so I don't have to take the double ration of shit that is no doubt coming my way...but. I didn't.

It wasn't until I read your post that I realized I was also thinking of the gender-based guard-dogging that I'm likely to get too. I guess we internalize it after awhile.

I've often noticed this phenomenon through-out my life. In college I had many courses that were question-oriented and often the women in the class refrained from participating in the public discussion. This happened in classes with male or female instructors. I really noticed it when I was working in retail sales management- we often had break-out disussion sessions and sales training, but the females in the group did not have a proportional input due to lack of participation.
I don't think that most men desire to shut women out of the conversation through thier style or forcefulness in public speaking, at least it has never been my intention. I have been accused of intellectual misogony or bullying through public speach before, but it always turned-out to be a problem with my style of presentation and the confidence I displayed in my conclusions. The last thing on my mind when I am articulating an opinion or suggestion is the demeaning or trivialization of the women in the class room or board room. I am simply trying to convince the listener (male or female) to agree with my propositions and conclusions, and one way of convincing people is through confidence in yourself and your opinions and the display of that confidence through body language, speech inflection and tone and a wide body of knowledge about the subject.
I have raised my daughters to be the ones in class that speak-up and ask questions, and they revel in thier ability to silence "dudes" with thier command of the language and breadth of understanding in thier subjects. Most "dude" types are scared of my daughters and thier independant attitude and abilities.

As a grad student, I teach undergrads and many of the most talkative are women. There are others, however, I call on just because I don't hear from them enough. Among the grad students, women students have much to say, all of it is worthwhile and some of it is quite brilliant. Many of our faculty, including some of its brightest stars, are women. All that is true of the men as well, but in this culture, that is assumed.

Granted, I'm talking about academia where people are unusually well informed. I realize this is not how things are in "the world." Hopefully, advances made in niche areas like academia will eventually spread to the wider society.

Speaking of brilliant things female graduate students say, we were talking about this very issue in one class. Specifically, we were discussing how nuns in colonial Latin America used the space of the convent to exercise agency in the patriarchy and that the power structure in the convent was a female version of the patriarchy in miniature. We quibbled over whether it was not actually a matriarchy. I asked if it were, would it not be based on consensus-building rather than top-down management. One of the other students pointed out that the idea that consensus-building is a feminine characteristic is itself a patriarchal construct that our society has internalized. In an actual matriarchal society, there is no reason to think that the women would not be as authoritarian as male leaders now are.

I find it helps

my voice doesn't do it.
Been a while since I've been in business, retired since '06, so can't testify to this 100%. WAS in professional settings where my, and everyone's, points of view potentially had value, so those settings did attempt to encourage everyone's voice, but still difficult.

In undergrad, I went to a college for women only. Small classes. I learned to find my voice and speak up freely.

When I went to law school, I thought I could continue what I had been doing in undergrad. I twice answered an arcane and esoteric question correctly and I heard a male peanut gallery in back of me commenting, "Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhh!" and not in a friendly, teasing way. It was derisive and meant to demean. Not that it stopped me, but my point is the OP is correct in some situations.